- (1.) I. P. Vasisth, J. The petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari quashing the charge-sheet contained in Annexure 6 along with the consequent proceedings and a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respon dents to release his full pension, gratuity, G. P. F. and other retiral dues.
(2.) AFTER putting in about three decades of service in the State Police Department, ihe petiiioner retired from the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police on 31-10-1990 on attaining the normal age of super annuation (58 years ). It was pleaded that during his active service, vide their orders dated 10-8- 1978 contained in Annexure 1 attac. icd with the petition, the departmen tal authorities conveyed the following ad verse remarks to him for the year 1977-78: a___"but supervision over subordinate staff was not'effective. " b. "he occupied office flat for residential purpose for which rent was paid by the Govern ment and he also charged house rent from the Government which casts adverse reflection on his integrity. " As a consequence of the aforesaid remarks, he was not allowed to cross the E. B. on 10-1-1978 which was the due date. However, in view of his representation, the respondents permitted him the crossing of tho efficiency bar vide order dated 1-5-1979 contained in Annexure 2, but post poned the date of issue to 9th Jan. 1979 resulting in the loss of increased salary for full one year. The petitioner agitated the issue before the State Government which passed an order on 3-1-1980 as contained in Annexure 3 diluting the. dverse remarks to some extent. To be precise, even though it did not say anything about the alleged laxity of super vision o- er the subordinate staff, yet on the institution of unauthorised drawal of house rent allowance and withholding the in tegrity certificate, it was ordered that the original remarks substituted by the follow ing: "decision about integrity certificate will be taken after enquiry. " Still dissatisfied with the Govt. ap proach, the petitioner filed a claim petition before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal at Lucknow questioning the very basis of both the aforesaid adverse remarks as well as the respondents action in post poning his entit lement to the higher scale by crossing the efficiency bar with effect from 10-1-1978. The respondents resisted the petitioner's claim, but ultimately the matter was decided in his favour vide Tribunal's order dated 19-7-1985 contained in An nexure 4. The remarks with regard to inef fectiveness in supervising the subordinate staff as well as the adverse entry for the year 1978-79 were struck off. He was also al lowed to cross the efficiency bar with effect from 10-1-1978 instead of 9- 1-1979 as con templated by the respondents. Regarding the issuance of integrity certificate relating to the alleged withdrawal of house rent al lowance while occupying the Government accommodation, the Tribunal directed the respondents to take an appropriate decision with in one month "failing which it would be treated as if certified. " , 5. The petitioner's grievance is that the respondents did not take any follow up ac tion on the judgment of the Services Tribunal and still held up the integrity cer tificate; they did not even initiate any en quiry proceedings' with the result that he again knocked at the doors of the Govern ment against the departmental antipathy. Ultimately on 19-8-1987 the Government passed an order as contained in Annexure 5 to the effect that the adverse entry relating to the lack of supervision over the subor dinate staff should be deleted from the petitioner's character roll relating to the year 1977-78, integrity certificate be issued and the efficiency bar be allowed to be crossed- over by the petitioner with effect from 10-1-1978 as directed by the Tribunal. In short, the Government instructed the department to abide by the judgment of the Tribunal. Simultaneously, an order was also passed to take appropriate disciplinary ac tion against the the persons responsible for holding up the implementation of the Tribunal's order. A report to this affect was to be submitted to the Government with in three months. 6. It was only thereafter that the department swung into action and served the charge-sheet dated 2-11- 1987 (An nexure 6 to the petition) on the petitioner alleging inter aha that from 15-4-1976 to 3-7-1977 while residing with family in office flat No. 2 and 7 at Agra, be withdrew house rent allowance at the rate of Rs. 115. 50 p. per month from 15-4-1976 to September, 1976 and at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month for the period from Oct. , 1976 to 3-7-1977. 7. The petitioner immediately responded to the charge-sheet by moving his application Annexure 7 dated 18-11-1987 requesting for the supply of relevant documents, to facilitate his reply and defence, but of the reasons better known to them, the department sat tight over the issue despite reminders by the petitioner, the last being a sort of representation con tained in Annexure 8 dated 5-9-1991. 8. According to the petitioner, the proposed departmental proceedings in pur suance to the aforesaid charge-sheet dated 2-11-1987 are unwarranted and the action of the respondents in withholding his retiral benefits including pension is arbitrary, without jurisdiction and void ab initio which requires to be quashed, hence this petition. 9. Resisting the proceedings, the respondents alleged having paid interim gratuity amount of Rs. 59, 700 to the petitioner on 14-11-1990 and 9096. of the G. P. F. on 18-1-1991 besides Rs. 39, 400 and an odd figure towards leave encashment on 14-3-1991; it was contended that in the meanwhile he had also been paid certain provisional pension pending enquiry. They propagated that since the petitioner was undergoing a departmental enquiry which was initiated during his service tenure on a serious charge of wrongful financial gain by withdrawal of house rent allowance to which he was not entitled, therefore, it was not deemed proper to release his entire retiral benefits. 10. All the same the factual position as projected by the petitioner in the context of adverse remarks and Tribunal's judgment was admitted and it was not disputed that he had demanded certain documents for preparing his defence by his letter dated 16-11-1987 which were notsupplied to him but the explanation was that the said letter was duly replied on 2-7-1991 and he was offered inspection besides copies of some of the documents which were available with them. Further correspondence i. e. after 15-7-1991 with regard to the supply of docu ments was not denied, but the failure to complete the departmental enquiry was at tributed to the non-cooperative attitude of the petitioner. 11. On a careful scrutiny of the entire material on record and hearing the parties, we are inclined to sustain the petitioner's cause. The pertinent point is that the entire episode revolves around the insinuation of drawal of house rent allowance despite petitioner's occupation of a Government residential accommodation at Agra from mid April, 1976 to July 1977. For the first time the petitioner was apprised of this charge when an adverse entry was incor porated and conveyed to him vide order dated 10-8-1978 contained in Annexure 1. Significantly enough it neither specified the period of such unauthorised withdrawal of house rent nor the particulars of relevant house flat. In short, no worth while details whatsoever were communicated to him whereas as a consequence of this adverse remark his integrity certificate was held up and the crossing of the efficiency bar was post poned by one year. 12. After uselessly agitating the issue with the department for quite some time, the petitioner took up the matter to the Services Tribunal who vide its judgment dated 19-7-1985 contained in Annexure 4 allowed him to cross the efficiency bar and issued a categorical direction to the depart ment to take a decision with regard to the issuance of the integrity certificate " with in one month failing which it would be treated as if certified. " In a manner of speaking, the respondents were expected to complete the enquiry by then, failing which they were obliged to issue him the requisite integrity certificate. But no step whatsoever in the direction of a departmental enquiry or decision to certify the integrity was taken for an inordinate period of more than two years forcing the petitioner to again. approach the Government. It is conceded that the Government took a serious view of the casual and indifferent approach of the department to dealing with the judgment of the Tribunal. It not only ordered implemen tation of the judgment, but also called for taking appropriate punitive action against the delinquent concerned employees as would be evident from the relevant order contained in Annexure 5. It was only there after that the wisdom dawned on the depart ment to give a charge-sheet on the petitioner on 2-11-1987 as contained in An nexure 6 and it was for the first time that the petitioner was apprised of the insinuation of an unauthorised drawal of a particular amount for a particular period for a specified house flat. Till then there was not even a whisper on any of these counts. 13. There is no explanation; good, bad or indifferent for an inordinate delay of more than ten years on the respondents' part in sitting tight over the proceedings. To add to their miseries, when the petitioner demanded certain documents which in cluded the most crucial and relevant papers relating to the withdrawal of the house rent allowance vide his letter dated 18-11-1987 contained in Annexure 7, they adopted an absolute silence. From para No. 5 of the counter affidavit, it is abundantly clear that this letter was replied only on 2-7-1991 meaning there by a delay of more than three and a half years in simple acknowledgment of the letter; and it goes without saying that all the documents including the relevant ones, were still not offered to him. So ob viously the petitioner could not project his defence in a proper way and was hand icapped in replying to the charge-sheet. 14. As a matter of fact, the requisite documents have not been supplied to the petitioner even up-to- date as would be evi dent from the respondents' own letter dated 19-8-1994 contained in Annexure R. A. 4. This letter was sent to the petitioner by the D. I. G. , P. A. C. Moradabad in which it was said that efforts were still being made to trace out the relevant documents and that they would be supplied to him-whenever available. Of course, some other documents which too were relied upon by the petitioner were supplied to him. But the petitioner's response to it as per his letter Annexure R. A. 5 dated 24-8-1994 would show that the copy of the house rent receipts, vide which he had allegedly accepted the money during the relevant period were not still supplied to him and significantly enough letter An nexure R;a. 5 is yet to be replied by the respondents. This part of the averments was not controverted either by filing an ap propriate supplementary counter or by way of submission before this Court. 15. In the totality of the circumstances, we thus feel that a state matter relating to the year 1976-77, raked up for the first time in proper perspective only in November, 1987 is still lingering on without any worthwhile progress in enquiryand com pletely because of the fault and latches of the respondents in which the petitioner had absolutely no contribution and this despite the fact that he has since retired from ser vice. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh and another 1990 (Supp.) S. C. C. 738, the learned Judges of the Apex Court were pleased to hold that in the ab sence of a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing charge-sheet and concluding with the proceedings, it would be unfair to permit the departmental en quiry to proceed belatedly. We have no reason whatsoever to walk out of the ratio of their observations. 16. Hence for the reasons recorded above, we allow the petition, quash the charge-sheet contained in Annexure 6 along with the consequent departmental proceed ings and pass a writ of mandamus in favour of the petitioner calling upon the respon dents to forth with release his all retiral benefits. Petition allowed. .;